USEF High Performance Dressage ... and the Performance Standard Rule

[slc2]

Alot of the talk seems to revolve around the assumption that scores under 62% are actually ‘bad riding’ in some sense. That is where I get off the bandwagon.

My experience is that the scores from 55-61 are not ‘bad riding’ at all, but simply the average amateur with the average horse - he doesn’t go forward, his figures aren’t terribly accurate, he doesn’t bend the horse enough, he goes off course, stops, starts again, he forgets to sit the trot, he breaks 4 times at the canter, he doesn’t exactly ever get the horse to canter the other way, he clucks to try and get old sparky to move along…instant 55% or less…I hardly think that’s gonna hurt the horse. The horse, in fact, probably LOVES it.

If the goal is to get rid of ‘bad riding’ rather than just ‘average riding’, they could make the cut off 50%.

[I][B]And I think it’s quite true that a strong professional with a bad temper can do far WORSE ‘bad riding’ than the bumbling sweet little amateur riding slowly around who turns left three times when his caller says ‘right’.

At least his horse is happy just shlumphing along doing le minimum. I totally fail to see how that is a ‘horse issue’.

I really do fail to see how that is ‘bad’ in the sense of ‘cruel’ or ‘abusive’, and why it’s conversely not ‘cruel’ ‘bad’ or ‘abusive’ to have a little wee problem with the temper on the show grounds. I’m all for giving a horse a little old come to jesus moment when he’s acting like a mule, and i see no problem with giving a horse a fairly obvious half halt or 3 or 30, or a kick in the belly when he needs it, but that is NOT what i’m talking about in this case.

I think once and for all this concept of ‘bad riding’ REALLY needs to be defined. I think most placid, relaxed horses could care less if their owner plops up and down in the saddle, goes off course or doesn’t bend horsey’s neck just right, as long as they don’t have to really work hard, I really do not think they have any feeling of being abused. [/B][/I]

So define ‘bad riding’. Define how scores from 55-62 percent are abusing the horse. If the rider really IS jerking the face off the horse at every stride and flying out of the saddle and the horse really IS in distress, how in the flaming h*** is the person getting anything more than a 50 anyway???

[claire]

@SGray;3085184

I believe that the issue remains with the judging.
BUT - large but - judges have stated that as long as the horse gets the jobs done, even if despite the rider, they have been instructed that they should give a 6…that 5’s and below only come into play if the rider is grossly interfering with the movements of the horse.

If, (according to RY’s statistics) 97% of the riders are scoring in the 50%+ range, meaning, according to the scoring definition, are at least “sufficiently” answering the questions of the tests…

We are really talking about 3% of riders that comprise the “bad rider” element?

Which, IIRC (RY/Star correct me) most of those (3%) scores were in the 40%(insufficient) range? Not the 20% that “bad riding” should be scored?
(ie. 1=Very Bad, 2=Bad, 3=Fairly Bad)

It would appear the issue that should be addressed is Score Inflation.
And, what is needed is for the judges to raise the bar and call a spade a spade in the Dressage ring. Start scoring all this “bad riding” as such with the 20% that it deserves. :yes:

If the judges don’t want to be the “tough guy” and think that having a Qualification Standard is going to “take the pressure off”…

I would suggest they think again, as the pressure to further inflate scores (or not be invited to judge) will be even more of an issue with a Qualification Rule in place.

[SGray]

@claire;3085477

…It would appear the issue that should be addressed is Score Inflation.
And, what is needed is for the judges to raise the bar and call a spade a spade in the Dressage ring. Start scoring all this “bad riding” as such with the 20% that it deserves. :yes:

If the judges don’t want to be the “tough guy” and think that having a Qualification Standard is going to “take the pressure off”…

I would suggest they think again, as the pressure to further inflate scores (or not be invited to judge) will be even more of an issue with a Qualification Rule in place.

excellent point

[rosinante]

@PennyRidge;3083920

This is the kind of over-reaction that makes reading the bulletin board conversation difficult to stick with, SGray!:eek:

Who says that folks who can’t score 60 percent should quit? That is not the agenda of the DC, I’m sure!

The issue is that those riders who can’t score over 60 percent with some ease should not be moving up. Shotenstar made a good point that many of these riders probably “self-regulate”, but those aren’t the ones that the rule is aimed towards. I just picked up my latest edition of Dressage Today and thought the quotes from some of the DC members were quite well put.

>>>Who says this is an over-reaction…seems like a civil dialog.
>>>Why is “self regulation” bad?
>>>Were there “counter points” to the DC opinions? Was there any “editorial evaluation” of the merits of BOTH sides?

@PennyRidge;3083920

Axel Steiner said “Most of us know that we often spend 80 percent of our time on 20 percent of the problem.”…“With this proposed system, we are attempting to do the same: 80 percent of the riders are responsible to themselves and their horses. It is the other 20 percent who either feel they are above earthly rules and the Training Scale or are just ignorant. It is these riders that we need to properly influence for the sake of their horses and our sport.”

>>>Numbers thrown about without substantiation. Thus the emphasis on data. On what basis does he make those remarks? International shows? Local/yokel shows?

>>>"For the sake of our horses??? Then why warm-up rings closed off to spectators at some FEI shows in Europe???..because of fear of charges of abuse. This rule will do nothing regarding abusive riding by professionals trying to meet performance commitments to owners. Perhaps the rule SHOULD be directed specifically at professionals riding above 4th level.

@PennyRidge;3083920

…but why on earth would any serious rider (amateur or otherwise) be irritated that they have to prove themselves competent before moving up? I don’t get it.

>>>It is not the qualification rule people object to, it is the PROCESS that was used to introduce/promote the rule.

>>>The original rule had no details. It was introduced in a late Nov07 USDF meeting, to be voted on in a Jan08 USEF meeting. There was no time for discussion/debate/revision which raises a lot of questions…and given no information, people gravitate to assuming the worse. To date, there has been no communication from the DC…not even floating a trial balloon…eg., no dialog.

[QUOTE=PennyRidge;3083920]Furthermore, I would love for the quality of the riding at the nationally recognized shows to improve so much that it actually attracts more people to the sport…

Who knows if the proposal they will come up with will achieve this, but I am hoping it does…

Raising the bar is good for the sport… [/QUOTE]

>>>No rider goes to a show expecting to do poorly. Every rider out there at a dressage show thinks they are “good enough” to compete. If people disagree with this misguided self-perception, then it is the judge’s job give the individual a reality check.

>>>Attracting more people to the sport requires that people listen to “non-members” of the USDF. Those people that already are USDF members already “have religion.” It is those who are not “in the tent”…including perhaps some of the posters on this BB…are exactly those who should be targets of a marketing effort. Telling those people they are they are clueless for not understanding why they wouldn’t want a qualifying rule demeans the other person’s point of view. One should seek to understand before seeking to be understood.

>>>The quality of riding will improve when riders have access to affordable, quality instruction. If the rationale for the rule is to mimic Germany, then we also need to mimic the infrastructure of local riding clubs, school horses and trainers that support the German system. Raising the bar without fundamental change to the quality of the “feeder pool” of riders will just serve to diminish the number of riders presenting themselves at the higher levels. This is ok…if there is an overt statement that the intent of the rule it to gravitate to smaller shows with “qualified riders”…but is this not that is what “qualifying scores” already do in qualifying classes…

[Whisper]

@slc2;3085448

My experience is that the scores from 55-61 are not ‘bad riding’ at all, but simply the average amateur with the average horse - he doesn’t go forward, his figures aren’t terribly accurate, he doesn’t bend the horse enough, he goes off course, stops, starts again, he forgets to sit the trot, he breaks 4 times at the canter, he doesn’t exactly ever get the horse to canter the other way, he clucks to try and get old sparky to move along…instant 55% or less…I hardly think that’s gonna hurt the horse.

Absolutely! I actually had a 58% (when converted from Eventing penalty points) at Intro a few months ago. I’d only been riding the horse for less than 2 weeks at that point. He was fantastic in the warmup, but when we got to the arena (almost 10 minutes early) they were running early, and had us go straight in instead of doing a few trot circles to get his focus back. I had a 6 on rider, and the comments were that we improved significantly for the 2nd half of the test. He didn’t do anything horrible or outrageous, but was a little tense and not forward enough, and broke to the trot in his free walk. The following month, we scored the equivalent of 77% with several 8’s. Both times, we went clear in the jumping phases and came in 2nd, though the final scores were very different. Several of the other horses had problems on XC, and a couple in stadium as well. I felt the scores both times were fair.

I haven’t seen any data indicating that scores below 50% are common at any level. If the qualification requirements were the same as for championships (2 scores > 62% for ammies, IIRC), or if they focused specifically on addressing bad riding by requiring 2 or 3 RIDER scores of at least 6 or 7 at the previous level before moving up, I wouldn’t object. 10 classes, or the 20 they started out with, is just absurd though. It doesn’t affect me right this moment - I am fortunate enough to be leasing a schoolmaster (through I-1 and YR, not GP) who’s more than capable of doing well at 2nd and 3rd, but I recognise that I’m not ready to show at that level yet, without the DC telling me so. :rolleyes: I’m planning to do Training Level with him in the near future, to get a feel for how we interact in a show environment, get a judge’s feedback, and hopefully get some good pictures with both of us all gussied up.

[sm1]

[QUOTE=Derid;3085349]
Rebecca,

You are to be commended for your effort in organizing a grass-root uprising among the students of dressage in the US, and the bravery required in leadership. Many, support you in your efforts…

I would recommend to you and others finding themselves exhausted from these early confrontations with a long, arduous battle to come, read “The Art of War…” Many of you, I believe, will be amazed at the parallelisms found in those pages. And hopefully, renew the passions and become wiser to the strategies of USEF, etc.

Remember…

3. organize your supporters and be ready to confront their document point by point (set up committees that will research and write rebuttal arguments to their points — NOW, as many are predictable)…
4. energy should be put into forming a committee that will insist the rule change document be presented no less than 6 month before it will be voted upon -------- and, that USEF circulate the opposing document to all voting participants 2 months prior to the vote. Just like a voter’s pamphlet.
5. always, appear that you are willing to work with them, don’t permit them to imply that this is the irrational response from an fringe group………
6. you might request that Dressage Today consider publishing a follow up article.[/QUOTE]

Also, can we make an effort at supplying to the GMOs (with possible Dressage Today sidebar in our article) positive and educational solutions, like SGray’s post 49.

Regarding all good questions every single GMO should be considering: SLC2 also came up with good questions for the DC to address regarding implementation. Likewise, SGray posed some good questions for the DC.

Did someone suggest earlier we could use another thread to house this information – and only this information – so all is immediately accessible? I don’t know if I read that in a post, or THOUGHT it as I was reading a post, wow, tooooo many interruptions this morning to stay focused.

[swgarasu]

@claire;3085477

If, (according to RY’s statistics) 97% of the riders are scoring in the 50%+ range, meaning, according to the scoring definition, are at least “sufficiently” answering the questions of the tests…

We are really talking about 3% of riders that comprise the “bad rider” element?

Which, IIRC (RY/Star correct me) most of those (3%) scores were in the 40%(insufficient) range? Not the 20% that “bad riding” should be scored?
(ie. 1=Very Bad, 2=Bad, 3=Fairly Bad)

It would appear the issue that should be addressed is Score Inflation.
And, what is needed is for the judges to raise the bar and call a spade a spade in the Dressage ring. Start scoring all this “bad riding” as such with the 20% that it deserves. :yes:

This is exactly the point I made to one of the members of the DC. The response?

“Judges work very hard and spend thousands of dollars to pursue their education and promotion through the levels from r to R to S. Until they attain the highest level they will qualify for, they are not in a position to risk this to be crusaders. And I have heard our top FEI judges say they moderate their scores and judging of abuse to avoid lawsuits. The cost in time and money is not worth the effort.”

The performance standards proposal is a roundabout way to try and prevent a few bad riders from advancing while minimizing the risk (of complaints or lawsuits) to the judges who score them.

[sm1]

[QUOTE=swgarasu;3087617]
And I have heard our top FEI judges say they moderate their scores and judging of abuse to avoid lawsuits. The cost in time and money is not worth the effort.".[/QUOTE]

No problem: add some legalese to the riders entry form, rider signs off when they send in their entry form: “rider agrees the opinion and score of the judge is final and no correspondence can be entered into.”

I’m not a lawyer, so words to that effect. No sign-off, no test. As with other incomplete paperwork, maybe show mgt will allow completion at the show secretary’s desk efore the test.

So now judges can actually do what they are under contract to do? How about that…

[JennNC]

[QUOTE=slc2;3085448]
Alot of the talk seems to revolve around the assumption that scores under 62% are actually ‘bad riding’ in some sense. That is where I get off the bandwagon.

My experience is that the scores from 55-61 are not ‘bad riding’ at all, but simply the average amateur with the average horse - he doesn’t go forward, his figures aren’t terribly accurate, he doesn’t bend the horse enough, he goes off course, stops, starts again, he forgets to sit the trot, he breaks 4 times at the canter, he doesn’t exactly ever get the horse to canter the other way, he clucks to try and get old sparky to move along…instant 55% or less…I hardly think that’s gonna hurt the horse. The horse, in fact, probably LOVES it.

<<I don’t know how to separate the quotes from my own comments until I get some practice, so I’ll put my comments within the <<>>. I agree with you that the horse isn’t necessarily hurt (as in abuse) being ridden this way at the lower levels, unless the rider is hanging on his mouth all the while which could surely lead to lameness/stiffness. However, let me ask you this…WHY isn’t the horse forward? Is it because you think the horse just can’t go forward for some reason? Even old sparky can probably be ridden in a way that gets his rear in gear. So, what does this say about the rider…why CAN’T the rider get Old Sparky’s rear in gear? And why isn’t the horse showing the correct bend? Is the rider not riding well enough or lacking feel or what? Why can’t the horse pick up the canter on one lead? Is it the horse’s fault?

You see where I am going, I’m sure…yes, it is bad riding. If it was good riding, the horse would have his rear in gear, he would be properly bent and he would pick up his leads. If this rider is showing second level and doing this…then it surely could be called bad riding.>>

If the goal is to get rid of ‘bad riding’ rather than just ‘average riding’, they could make the cut off 50%.

[I][B]And I think it’s quite true that a strong professional with a bad temper can do far WORSE ‘bad riding’ than the bumbling sweet little amateur riding slowly around who turns left three times when his caller says ‘right’.

At least his horse is happy just shlumphing along doing le minimum. I totally fail to see how that is a ‘horse issue’.

I really do fail to see how that is ‘bad’ in the sense of ‘cruel’ or ‘abusive’, and why it’s conversely not ‘cruel’ ‘bad’ or ‘abusive’ to have a little wee problem with the temper on the show grounds. I’m all for giving a horse a little old come to jesus moment when he’s acting like a mule, and i see no problem with giving a horse a fairly obvious half halt or 3 or 30, or a kick in the belly when he needs it, but that is NOT what i’m talking about in this case.

I think once and for all this concept of ‘bad riding’ REALLY needs to be defined. I think most placid, relaxed horses could care less if their owner plops up and down in the saddle, goes off course or doesn’t bend horsey’s neck just right, as long as they don’t have to really work hard, I really do not think they have any feeling of being abused. [/B][/I]

<<I disagree. Riders who can’t sit well who then put the horse on contact and try to make it do figures while they are crooked with their backs dropped and their hocks trailing and their necks rigid can go quite lame. I don’t disagree with you about the abuse seen by professionals and high level riders, but many a horse has been trashed by a well-meaning rider who rode their horse into lameness. If these poor riders would ride their horses on a loose rein and hack around the country side, that’s one thing, but when they start trying to put them “on the bit” when they can’t sit well enough to ride the horse straight and forward…the horse can definitely be “hurt” by this.>>

So define ‘bad riding’. Define how scores from 55-62 percent are abusing the horse. If the rider really IS jerking the face off the horse at every stride and flying out of the saddle and the horse really IS in distress, how in the flaming h*** is the person getting anything more than a 50 anyway???[/QUOTE]

<<My guess is that they are the ones riding the high dollar fancy movers!!! Perhaps the horse has 8 or 9 gaits and if the horse were ridden by a good rider, he would be scoring closer to 70%. Perhaps the movement would have scored an 8 or higher, but the rider inhibits the poor horse to the point that the movement only gets a 5 or 6. For instance, the horse is a high level horse with 8/9 gaits…he canters a circle for a score. The judge says, "yep, the horse is cantering and the circle is the right size, but he is inverted and crooked. What should have been an 8 or a 9 is now marked down due to the lack of throughness/bend.

I’m not saying that this is right or wrong…I’m just saying that this what I see happen time and time again as I scribe.

Plenty of rides that score upper 50s to 60% rides at 2nd level are NOT beautiful to watch.>>

anne

[SGray]

@rebecca yount;3084765

I am exhausted from all the work that has gone into this and so, I am sure, are Shotenstar and Pluvinel. We appreciate the support we have had from the dressage community. Right now I am feeling pretty misunderstood and misquoted by TPTB. They clearly have connections in the press and while our suggestions as to objective, published articles have been rejected, I am kind of discouraged by the sound of the Dressage Today article. More later, because I need to actually do some of my OTHER work and earn some money. But really quick, I wanted to address one small point:

There were two members of the Dressage Committee at the Region 1 meeting on Sunday, 3/16. Neither one was a judge. One was a very active, well-known, well-respected trainer (and competitor) and the other was a TD who is also in a position of “control” in USDF. Both are VERY influential.

We still don’t have a “draft” and probably won’t until summer. More about that later, too. So we really don’t have an “official” statement of what the Dressage Committee thinks is the “problem”. We are assuming, from other statements and the first draft, that one thing they would like to address, is “bad riding”. This was discussed at the Region 1 meeting.

Among many other things, the trainer/competitor (while wearing his “trainer/competitor” hat and not his “Dressage Committee” hat) who was present said that this qualification rule will NOT get rid of bad riding. He said that he sees as much or more bad riding from professionals as from amateurs.

Again, there was a lot more said than just that. We have extensive notes from the meeting and as soon as we can catch our breath we will try and catch up on those. We definitely got a message of “stop the negative rudeness on the bulletin boards”, by the way. I am not saying that is reality, but that is what people at the Region 1 meeting admonished us for, correct or not.

Rebecca - I just want to apologize for my use of a word characterizing the meeting which was not what you meant and which brought you additional stress – the last thing which I would want to do is to cause you any discomfort

[swgarasu]

duplicate post

[swgarasu]

[QUOTE=sm;3087665]
No problem: add some legalese to the riders entry form, rider signs off when they send in their entry form: “rider agrees the opinion and score of the judge is final and no correspondence can be entered into.”

I’m not a lawyer, so words to that effect. No sign-off, no test. As with other incomplete paperwork, maybe show mgt will allow completion at the show secretary’s desk efore the test.

So now judges can actually do what they are under contract to do? How about that…[/QUOTE]

I already brought that up - the reply was:

“A judge can be sued for anything a competitor wants to sue for, no matter what rules are in place. It may be a frivolous suit, later thrown out, but the judge still have to pay travel, lawyer fees, and other expenses to defend himself. Filing a charge of abuse with USEF against a competitor can also entail an expensive trip to Lexington at an inconvenient time. Not many are willing to risk the cost.”

I don’t think it’s a good idea to never question a judge in case the judge is actually being unfair, but I feel the burden of proof should be on the competitor. And it should never come to a lawsuit - that’s ridiculous. But if people can go ahead and sue in spite of any rules, then I don’t see any real solution besides not having horse shows. If the individuals who pull that kind of crap were properly punished things would work out, but money and politics and law are too closely intertwined…

[rosinante]

[QUOTE=swgarasu;3087901]
I already brought that up - the reply was:

“A judge can be sued for anything a competitor wants to sue for, no matter what rules are in place. It may be a frivolous suit, later thrown out, but the judge still have to pay travel, lawyer fees, and other expenses to defend himself. Filing a charge of abuse with USEF against a competitor can also entail an expensive trip to Lexington at an inconvenient time. Not many are willing to risk the cost.”

I don’t think it’s a good idea to never question a judge in case the judge is actually being unfair, but I feel the burden of proof should be on the competitor. And it should never come to a lawsuit - that’s ridiculous. But if people can go ahead and sue in spite of any rules, then I don’t see any real solution besides not having horse shows. If the individuals who pull that kind of crap were properly punished things would work out, but money and politics and law are too closely intertwined…[/QUOTE]

I had this discussion with counsel for the organization that administers a national standardized test.

The question in my case was how were lawsuits handled if people sued because their scores were invalidated (for any reason, but in my case, specifically for allegations of cheating).

The answer I got was that this was handled by injecting the appropriate clauses in the test forms, applications and answer sheets, and having the applicant sign that they are aware of the policies and procedures. When the applicant affers by signing that h/she submits to and is bound by the policies and procedures of the administering organization…including investigations of cheating, then there is no case.

This was tested in court and the ruling was that this came under “contract law” and that the person suing was bound under the conditions of the contract, eg., to abide by the policies and procedures of the testing agency. The testing agency had appropriately followed procedures giving the applicant “due process”…thus the case was dismissed.

Yes, there was a lawsuit, but no trial and the paperwork was handled by the “office staff”. If one is going to judge, then one has to be prepared for these eventualities. The USEF needs to provide adequate support to the judges who might be facing these potential suits by providing legal counsel and representation should the suit happen.

In the analog to the testing case, the USEF needs to have “policies and procedures” to give riders recourse to contesting scores…then they need to actually follow those policies and procedures. Once that is in place, there are no grounds for suit.

Judges are the arbiters of quality.There are alternative channels to separating the wheat from the chaff that does not necessarily include a qualifying rule.

Disclaimer…I’m not an attorney…but I deal with a lot of them.

[swgarasu]

Rosinante-

That’s good to hear. Things like that make sense, but without an actual lawyer to say that is the case and without other cases cited to back it up, I can see why the USEF would be apprehensive. One would think the first thing they would do when a judge is sued is to take steps to prevent it from happening again, but if the organization isn’t willing to support the judge I can see where the concern arises. I got the impression that the judges are pretty much being left on their own.
I suggested the USEF should include a release with the entry form for this reason, and was told I should submit a rule change proposal.
Not being a lawyer though, any change I suggested would probably not be worthwhile. Even if the release went in, and was signed, if the USEF wasn’t willing to be supportive I don’t think it would do much to alleviate the issue.
Policy without support is meaningless in my experience.

[Eclectic_Horseman]

Not rocket science

This stuff about judges being afraid to be sued is TOTAL BS.

First, have all competitors sign a “covenant not to sue” as part of the entry. Sure, some idiot could still sue, but the suit would be quickly dismissed.

Second, get a blanket liability insurance policy (like they don’t already have one.)

Third, USEF should agree to hold harmless and defend any judge that is acting within the scope of their duties at a recognized show (probably all ready do.)

[rosinante]

The concept of disclaimers and “waiving” your rights to sue raise interesting points that probably no one has considered because no one has asked the question before.

Anyone can sue for anything…at any time…Trip and fall in front of my house on a public sidewalk, and I can be sued. So the spectre of a lawsuit is a fact of American life…like it or not.

The judges would be considered as “indipendent contractors” (at least by the IRS), not employees of the USEF…but the USEF is the licensing body for the judge and the entity that provides recognition for the show…my bet would be that the attorney for the plaintiff would “join” any and all parties that he could in such a suit…the show organizers, show managment, judge and including the USEF. Thus it behooves the USEF to partner with their judges and help them.

In any case, the lil’ AA upset with low scores ain’t gonna spend the money to sue. My attorney’s latest bill show’s he’s billing at $300/hr.

The one case I recall where there was a MAJOR lawsuit in equestrian sport which turned the applecart was in show-jumping. A competitor challenged the subjective selection procedure…that competitor was no local AA…it was a competitor playing with the big boys…and the qualification rule will exempt those already riding at the high levels.

[rebecca_yount]

SGray–no problem–I knew that you were not misquoting me and I am fine.

Thank you for commenting on it. ry

[rebecca_yount]

was trying to hold off a while on reporting in detail concerning this issue as it was discussed at the USDF Region 1 meeting. However, since Alison and Jennifer and Lori K (maybe others, I’m not trying to exclude anyone) have come on this BB (on the other thread) and given names of who was there and who said what, here are notes from this portion of the USDF Region 1 meeting on 3/16/08, graciously hosted by Scott and Susanne Hassler:

RY had requested of Alison that this be put on the Agenda for the Region 1 3/16/08 meeting via email on 2/15/08. She replied that she would, but that discussion had to be balanced and limited, only ½ hour, hearing both sides, etc. She reminded me, Mary, and Ana of this several times subsequently, making it clear that we were not going to be allowed to do a “presentation”. There was also inquiry into my, Mary’s and Ana’s membership status 1.5 weeks prior to the Region 1 meeting.

Just before lunch, Alison said we could discuss it. She pointed out:
-there was lots of discussion at the USDF convention
-the USEF BoD tabled the rule change - sent back to DC to be looked at some more

(here Sam Barish interjected that the new proposal is due out of the DC in the next week or 2) Then Alison went on:
-the DC heard the comments that were made (in December and January) and took them into consideration
-keep the discussion on the high side—the BB discussions were too negative

Passed out summary of prelim data analysis, questions/answers re our “agenda”, our brief bios (ry, shoten, pluvinel) during Alison’s comments

Alison then called on Scott Hassler (member of USEF Dressage Committee) to give an update from the Dressage Committee. He spoke as a member of the DC, and first read the USEF press release of 1/14/08. He continued with comments:
-expressed fairly strong displeasure for the negative comments on the BBs
-everyone needs to work as a unit to better the sport
-it is a big change that is being proposed
-the DC doesn’t want to discriminate (against anyone) nor to exclude anyone
-not elitist
-discussion of “What is Better?” Achievement of a standard. Protection of horse
-USEF is creating a page on the website for feedback/comments on the next version of the rule change
-will market better (Sam Barish said it would come out very shortly e.g. 1-2 weeks)
-Scott was very clear that it would be “summer”–may not see until after the DC’s summer meeting (Linda, another PVDA member, thinks he said before summer)
-said that they made a mistake in rushing so fast the first time and trying to get something ready quickly
-the new proposal is VERY different, not take effect until 2011, be easily
attainable

Col Clarence Edmonds’ Comments:
-he was one of the founders of USDF
-psychology of the rule change is a Very Bad Thing to do – one group of ladies telling the rest of the ladies that they are not good enough to ride here
-we all have (should have) an opportunity to try and fail - this is not Deutschland—this is the United States of America
-source of the rule change is upper level judges trying to aggrandize themselves, a few people telling 30,000 people they can’t ride where they want to

Emmett’s Turner/ Shelli’s comments:
-this is a reality that is coming - see eventing and steeplechasing for similar rules
-Shelli—now the process has been clarified and improved so the DC is listening

When called on by Alison, Rebecca’s comments:
-appreciate Scott’s remarks and the DC’s willingness to hear member comments
-appreciate creation of website page
-needs to be a data-based decision
-why we undertook analysis
-we are not necessarily opposed—want the problem to be stated clearly, based on
data, with a solution based on problem and data
-PVDA will post info and poll members
-suggested that other GMOs disseminate information to members, be ready to
comment, feedback to DC

Sam Barish:
-the USDF appoints 60% of the DC
-working with the eventing folks for wording that will address the eventers who want to show at 3rd level

General comments from floor:
-people tended to support Scott—generally saying BB discussion was too
negative
-one person said she thought the idea of forming a different organization as discussed on the BB was bad
-why are we criticizing these people who VOLUNTEER their time
-someone said maybe data was not the way to determine the problem/solution
-said they would welcome qualifying standards to protect horse
-talked about personal experiences with students showing before ready/buying double bridle (Jennifer Mitchell)
-some questions about analysis—then said ok, so, if almost half (43.1%) of
2nd-4 riders scored below 60%, then that’s pretty bad and we DO need a qualifying standard
-discussion about judges feeling supported in scoring correctly
-RY told of her experience yesterday as demo rider at L program (hi scoring encouraged)
-Kristen who rode in L program on Saturday said she also thought JBF was
encouraging people to score with full range
-woman in front row said she thought fault was with the instructors
-discussion of more education for instructors, requirements so they won’t turn
out poor riders
-some discussion of problem re hi scoring being encouraged by L program

Ana’s Comments re: analysis:
-what is the problem
-the threshold eliminates the defectives without solving the underlying problems
Scott, as competitor/trainer, not in DC role, said:
-this will NOT eliminate bad riding but will show that they don’t support it in shows (ry said okay so say it that way, not say something unproven by data)
-said he sees more bad riding by professionals than amateurs
-this is about improving the SPORT, supporting the SPORT of dressage

RY:
-made it clear that we are not necessarily opposed to qualifying standards, just
want the problem to be clearly stated (e.g. have heard 30% rides, jerking on curb
bit at 3rd level, banging on horse’s back) and supported by data
-maybe data will show that qualifying standard is solution, but also maybe there are already rules in place to address poor/abusive riding (td, judges)
-empower judges to score the way they want—we have all had too low scores
and too high scores—it balances out—it’s a game
-although this has been a difficult and sometimes contentious process (we have
no control over what others say online), it is working (now) the way it is supposed to—with everyone being allowed to give his/her opinion even if others don’t like it
-BB got info out fast (Jennifer M) and has resulted in DC realizing that it should follow USEF procedure in place for rule changes, particularly getting member
feedback and researching possible solutions

[claire]

This sort of twisted logic just goes beyond the pale. :no:

So, we need to “Raise the Standards” have Qualifying Scores to move up because the judges are afraid to score accurately because they might be sued???

And, even if this is so, exactly HOW would having Qualifying Scores minimize the risk of being sued?

Won’t the “lawsuit crazy riders” be even more apt to sue if they didn’t get their qualifying score and had to put out another $$$ for another show?

@swgarasu;3087617

This is exactly the point I made to one of the members of the DC. The response?

"Judges work very hard and spend thousands of dollars to pursue their education and promotion through the levels from r to R to S. Until they attain the highest level they will qualify for, they are not in a position to risk this to be crusaders.

And I have heard our top FEI judges say they moderate their scores and judging of abuse to avoid lawsuits. The cost in time and money is not worth the effort."

The performance standards proposal is a roundabout way to try and prevent a few bad riders from advancing while minimizing the risk (of complaints or lawsuits) to the judges who score them.

[J-Lu]

@swgarasu;3087617

This is exactly the point I made to one of the members of the DC. The response?

“Judges work very hard and spend thousands of dollars to pursue their education and promotion through the levels from r to R to S. Until they attain the highest level they will qualify for, they are not in a position to risk this to be crusaders. And I have heard our top FEI judges say they moderate their scores and judging of abuse to avoid lawsuits. The cost in time and money is not worth the effort.”

The performance standards proposal is a roundabout way to try and prevent a few bad riders from advancing while minimizing the risk (of complaints or lawsuits) to the judges who score them.

You are kidding me.

I’m not even sure what to say. :o